OoO Peu avant le début de l'après-midi du mercredi 16 juillet 2008, vers 13:20, Thomas Dreibholz <dreibh@iem.uni-due.de> disait : > We are looking for a sponsor for our package "rsplib", a lightweight framework > for server pool management, load distribution and balancing. > * Package name : rsplib > Version : 2.5.0~beta9-0unstable2 > Upstream Author : Thomas Dreibholz <dreibh@iem.uni-due.de> > * URL : http://tdrwww.iem.uni-due.de/dreibholz/rserpool/ > * License : GPL, version 3 > Section : net Hi Thomas! Before working on a package, you should file an ITP to let everybody knows that you are working on it. You should then close this ITP in your changelog entry. In debian/control, update Standards-Version to 3.8.0 which is the latest. rsplib was packaged for oldstable. You might want to provide users an upgrade path. Binary packages were rsplib1 and rsplib-dev. You should at least conflict/replace them. You might also want to provide transition packages for them. However, since the package has been removed for quite some time, this may be unecessary. Your short description is too long. It should fit in one line. Try to shorten it. Why is rsplib-fgp-cfgfiles a separate package? If those are only examples, they should be in rsplib-services. Moreover, if you keep this package, it should be Arch: all instead of Arch: any. You should call ldconfig in postinst and postrm (see 8.1.1) rsplib-doc.* seem bogus. rsplib-tools provide binaries with generic names like "server" and "terminal". This will likely be rejected by ftp-masters since they are likely to create some conflict. You should rename them to something less generic like "rsp-server" and "rsp-terminal". In debian/rules, you can safely removes handling of noopt option since this is handled automatically by dpkg-buildpackage. -- les seuls qui lisent les FAQs sont ceux qui savent déjà ce qu'il y a dedans. -+- AT in: Guide du Cabaliste Usenet - chapitre 4 -+-
Attachment:
pgp5xQANW1Sp3.pgp
Description: PGP signature